4.6 Article

Porosity and Pore Size Distribution of Native and Delignified Beech Wood Determined by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma12030416

关键词

mercury intrusion porosimetry; delignification; wood; freeze-drying

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [160041]
  2. ETH Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The complex hierarchical structures of biological materials in combination with outstanding property profiles are great sources of inspiration for material scientists. Based on these characteristic features, the structure of wood has been increasingly exploited to fabricate novel hierarchical and functional materials. With delignification treatments, the density and chemistry of wood can be altered, resulting in hierarchical cellulose scaffolds with enhanced porosity for the fabrication of novel hybrid materials. In the present study, focusing on acidic delignification of beech wood and its influence on porosity, we report on a structural characterization and qualitative assessment of the cellulose scaffolds using mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). To account for the effect of water removal from the hygroscopic structure, different drying methodse.g., standard oven and freeze-dryingwere applied. While native beech wood is characterized by the presence of macro, meso and micro pores, delignification altered the porosity, increasing the importance of the macropores in the pore size distribution. Furthermore, we showed that the final porosity obtained in the material is strongly dependent on the applied drying process. Samples delignified under harsh conditions at high temperature (mass loss of similar to 35%) show a 13% higher porosity after freeze-drying compared to oven-dried samples. The obtained results contribute to a better understanding of the impact of the delignification and drying processes on the porosity of cellulose scaffolds, which is of high relevance for subsequent modification and functionalization treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据